Talk:Pakistan/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

pakistan is also known for its cricket. people call our country as bhikaristan. mentioning bhikaristan in Wikipedia would be helpfull. i don't know how to attach the sources here TheCuteSporty (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, if you can just provide the link to the source (or the name of it if it isn't online), I can format it for you. Liu1126 (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Bhikari / Bhikaristan is an abusive and islamophobic slur used by hindu nationalists against muslims and Pakistanis Muhammad Mahd (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

so you want your country to be known as land of beggars ? Bruh Abraca21 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Closed request pending response from TheCuteSporty. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2024

In the demographics section there's a part which says indian army raped kashmiri women, meanwhile there's enough substantial evidence to show Bengalis esp Hindus being raped by Pakistani army routinely in the 1970s Abraca21 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No alteration concerning contentious material can be implemented against a prior consensus without a new consensus being reached. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2024

Edit the Human Development Index of Pakistan Nhnnguyeneee (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Updated with 2023/2024 report. Please provide your own sources in future requests. Liu1126 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2024

2601:182:501:72C0:1F8:42A0:4C4C:C40E (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Countries that Pakistan doesn’t recognize |1|| | style="text-align:left"| Armenia |- |2|| (1) | style="text-align:left"| Israel |- |3|| | {{left} India

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 09:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Article size

I will be working on reducing the readable prose size of this article. The initial goal will be to reduce as much size by just language adjustment without changing the meaning and context of the content. There will not be any whole sale removal in initial stage. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright waiting on that. Nobody told me about the language adjustment part. However I did move the military history portion from here to Pakistan Armed Force and now there is duplication. I suggest we at least remove that. Also law enforcement section was fixed. So I reverted back to that portion. We can work from there. Wikibear47 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The size is now a hair below 15,000 words (14,966 to be exact, by independent count; the tools here do a *terrible* job of counting) and WP:SIZESPLIT is neither policy, nor guideline. This is a top-level, parent article in summary style; pretty much everything that could be shifted into child articles has been shifted. Thank you for your changes; the article is fine, now; please stop removing content (other than true duplication, and if you can move excess content from long subsections here to child articles, I have no objection). For further cuts not of those types, please achieve consensus here first. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

More improvements can be done under history section. Also I think that military history section should be moved from here to Pakistan Armed Forces or Military history of Pakistan. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

A country with four wars and other smaller conflicts in 77 years, I think that much military history is warranted. It is already a summary. If those other articles does not have this content then we can add it there but it should not be removed from this article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Using quotations with short footnotes

Hi, SheriffIsInTown. Thanks for your improvements to referencing. Just wanted to let you know that the use of param |ps= in combination with {{sfn}} (e.g., here) is problematic. Alternative solutions exist, such as {{harvtxt}}. Please see Template:Sfn#Adding additional comments or quotes for details. Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed they recommend using {{harvnb}} when there are multiple occurrences of the same reference with the same author and year but different quoted text. I haven't encountered this situation yet, but if I do, I'll certainly consider using the alternative solutions suggested. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I think an efn for every quoted source adds unnecessary complexity. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I find it very clear, but if you find that too complex, then please use <ref name="Last-yyyy">{{harvtxt|Last|yyyy}} Your quotation here.</ref> instead; harvnb may be an alternative. What you can't do, is leave it the way it was before. Also: please use {{sfn}} templates in the standard way, with just last name(s) only (no first name) followed by year; so not {{sfn|Safia Haleem|2013}} but {{sfn|Haleem|2013}} (and please add the page number, so it should be {{sfn|Haleem|2013|p=999}}. No need to add param |ref= to the citation in the bibliography if you use just the last name(s) and year in the {{sfn}}—the software will connect them up automatically. Notice how short citations #1–20 all connect now through the short citation to the full one in the Bibliography. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I'd rather opt for {{harvtxt}} because I believe having a letter for each footnote next to every source in the article doesn't look good. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand the question. But in general, there is no reason to include a quote with every citation, especially if the body content properly summarizes the source. (If it doesn't it should, and including a quotation is not, or at least, should not be a substitute for our requirement as editors to properly summarize our sources.) Anyone who really needs a quotation from the source can just look it up; maybe for some sources with very limited access a quotation could be helpful. If a quotation is particularly well-known, striking, or a perfect synthesis of the majority of reliable opinion on a particular topic, then consider adding the quotation directly to the article, enclosed in double-quotes. Mathglot (talk)+

(post-ec) If you prefer to use harvtxt for quotes, I have no objections to that method. Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Area is mentioned without reference to claims.

It just states Pakistan area outright. It doesn’t mention that Pakistan claims a total area of 908,677 sqkm. This needs to be addressed. 182.182.202.244 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Fake quotation on middle power status

In the bundled citation in the lead on middle power status, bullet 5 says this:

• Buzan & Waever (2003) "In the framework of their regional security complex theory (RSCT), Barry Buzan and Ole Waever differentiate between superpowers and great powers which act and influence the global level (or system level) and regional powers whose influence may be large in their regions but have less effect at the global level. This category of regional powers includes Brazil, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey."

This presents the double-quoted material as content copied directly from the source. The Buzan-Waever short citation lacks a page number, and I assumed it had to be part of a preface written by someone else, as Buzan and Waever wouldn't refer to themselves in the third person like that, so I also wanted to add the preface author as part of the citation. But I didn't find a preface in the book, and doing a search, I didn't find the quotation, either. Somewhat alarmed that we might have fake quotations in the article, I tracked this down as follows:

• at 21:00, 14 December 2016 Kautilya3 added an explanatory note to the "middle power" mention in the lead (diff). There were no quotation marks, and the |quote= param was not used; this was just a normal explanatory note added by a Wikipedia editor. (That said, notes of this type, like all body content, are subject to verification and sourcing if required, but I don't see a problem with it.)
• at 00:17, 5 March 2017 another editor added a |quote= parameter to the citation, and moved the explanatory note inside the citation as the content of the quote parameter (diff), causing Kautilya's note to appear to be a quotation from the book.

This then got propagated through some of the reference cleanup we have both been doing, retaining the double-quote marks to preserve it as a quotation.

However, it was never a quotation, it was authored by a Wikipedia editor, and text created by Wikipedia editors cannot be placed in double-quotes (unless they wrote a book and are quoting themselves). Having it enclosed in quotes is a violation of our WP:Verifiability policy. I have removed this fake quotation, and reestablished it as an explanatory note again. (We could also just remove it, if it doesn't add anything.) This makes me wonder whether there are other cases like this of citations containing fake quotations inside a |quote= parameter. We might have to scan the whole article and examine any quotations and make sure that verifiability holds up for all quotations. Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I tried to dig for a page number but I was not finding the quoted text, I assumed that I might have some accessibility issues. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)